Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Sociological Methods & Research
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by ANDERSON, J. C.
Right arrow Articles by GERBING, D. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Assumptions and Comparative Strengths of the Two-Step Approach

Comment on Fornell and Yi

JAMES C. ANDERSON

Northwestern University

DAVID W. GERBING

Portland State University

Fornell and Yi (1992 [this issue]) have discussed four assumptions that they contend underlie two-step approaches to structural equation modeling. Each of these assumptions is demonstrated to not be an assumption of the two-step approach recommended by Anderson and Gerbing (1988). In doing so, an attempt is made to provide some clarification and guidance to researchers interested in employing structural equation modeling to test and develop theory. Given the comparative strengths of the two-step approach over a one-step approach in practice, it is concluded that the preferred approach to the modeling task is the two-step approach of Anderson and Gerbing (1988).

Sociological Methods & Research, Vol. 20, No. 3, 321-333 (1992)
DOI: 10.1177/0049124192020003002
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Journal of Service ResearchHome page
C. M. Voorhees and M. K. Brady
A Service Perspective on the Drivers of Complaint Intentions
Journal of Service Research, November 1, 2005; 8(2): 192 - 204.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Applied Psychological MeasurementHome page
J. F. Lucke
The {alpha} and the {omega} of Congeneric Test Theory: An Extension of Reliability and Internal Consistency to Heterogeneous Tests
Applied Psychological Measurement, January 1, 2005; 29(1): 65 - 81.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Youth SocietyHome page
L. B. WHITBECK, R. D. CONGER, R. L. SIMONS, and M.-Y. KAO
Minor Deviant Behaviors and Adolescent Sexual Activity
Youth Society, September 1, 1993; 25(1): 24 - 37.
[Abstract]

Home page
 Sociological Methods ResearchHome page
C. Fornell and Y. Yi
Assumptions of the Two-Step Approach: Reply to Anderson and Gerbing
Sociological Methods Research, February 1, 1992; 20(3): 334 - 339.